Morality identification

שו”ת › Category: faith › Morality identification

asked 8 years ago

Good evening, I listened to your series of lessons on Torah and morality, and from what I also saw on the site, I understand that you identify morality with what people intuitively identify as morality. I wanted to ask, in light of the differences between different societies at different times, how is it possible to assume that this tool has an objective-universal aspect? In addition, why assume that a person has a cognitive ability in this field that apparently has a purely metaphysical nature? Thanks in advance.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 8 years ago

Hello. There are arguments in Halacha too, and that doesn’t mean there is no Halacha truth. The fact that there are arguments can also express that one is right and the other is wrong. What’s more, circumstances also affect moral behavior, and therefore people in different circumstances will behave differently, and that’s perfectly fine. Beyond that, I also think that the world is progressing, and therefore the rules of morality are changing for the better (in terms of what is accepted as moral behavior. Not necessarily in terms of what is actually done). When an African society meets a European society, the direction of change is clearly in the European direction because it is more progressive (don’t tell anyone about my chauvinism). If you don’t see it as a cognitive process, then the inference is subjective, and therefore shouldn’t be applied to those who think differently. Thus, there is no room for moral criticism of others (you feel this way and they feel differently).

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

גיא replied 8 years ago

Thanks for the answer
A. I meant that perhaps the debate is fundamentally futile and we do not have the cognitive ability to discuss the subject at all, and therefore every opinion is expected to fail in advance. Not like in halacha, which by its very definition is subject to human judgment.
B. I did not understand whether in your opinion morality is fixed and circumstances change or it develops according to the world.
C. I do think that there are objective moral values, but man does not have the tools to recognize them. This is where the Torah comes in, which tells us the moral values by virtue of the One who created the world and from that the good and the evil, and through the Torah it tells us the objective moral values, man as a subject does not have much say in the matter.

מיכי Staff replied 8 years ago

A. I don't see a difference. A moral debate is conducted between those with different positions, like a halakhic debate. Evidence can be provided here and here, and it is a fact that sometimes people are also convinced by a moral debate. That is precisely why I explain that it is a type of recognition and not thinking.
B. I wrote explicitly that both mechanisms are correct.
C. You will not find these values in the Torah either. It writes “and did what is right and good”, but does not specify what is right and good (since it is about something beyond Halacha. What's more, even in Halacha there are debates, as I wrote). It seems clear that its intention is that everyone knows for themselves what is right and good. And the fact is that you will never extract from the Torah moral values that you understand in advance to be correct. I have never seen anyone change their moral opinion because of studying the Torah. They always find in it what was right in their opinion beforehand.